# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2022-10-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
Greetings testers!
F37 went GO last week and is due to be released immanently. Let's review any
remaining last-minute i
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 11:53, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > >
> > > The `%clamp_mt
Hi,
please may you include my PRs before you start the rebuild?
>
I'll take a look at them. Thanks
Are you also updating to 3.0.6? The latest version of OpenColorIO requires
> that version at a minimum.
I'm updating to the latest version of minizip-ng which is 3.0.7
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 2
Will attend today :)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:09 AM Tim Flink wrote:
>
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2022-10-24
> # Time: 16:00 UTC
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
> # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
>
> Greetings testers!
>
> F37 went GO
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:05:03PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible:
> >
> > Where will this reproducibility stop?
>
> Ideally, when it's achieved,
> and 100% of Fedora will be reproduci
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221113.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221114.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 70
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> >I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
> >dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
> >rpmlint behaves differently with the new license definitions?
>
>
On 14. 11. 22 14:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
rpmlint behaves differentl
Hi everyone,
Here's an easy one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2140316
Happy to review something in exchange.
Best,
--
Iñaki Úcar
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fe
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Prevent-Providing-python3dist(pkg)%3D0
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engine
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency
> > would be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves
> > differently with the new license definitions?
>
On Sat, Nov 12 2022 at 01:50:28 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
Thanks for the information. Switched to webkit2gtk4.1:
https://github.com/rpmfusion/telegram-desktop/commit/f7faaf463172ee60e04598bd681957ae98be082f
OK, thanks, that should be good.
For now, this API change will only la
On 14.11.22 00:13, Sandro Mani wrote:
This is done now and the side tag merged. Two packages failed to build:
> python-rasterio
which fails to build due to test failures, I'll investigate whether
they are gdal related
Reported at https://github.com/rasterio/rasterio/issues/2653
For a few years I was keeping track of updates that caused big problems:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Lessons
The orig "very bad" update was a dbus update that broke everything.
In any case I have seen our current updates system working and blocking
tons of harmfull updates over the y
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 08:29:17PM -, Sergey Mende wrote:
> Hi,
> during development of my own project I hit the bug in `gdb` that is already
> fixed upstream but not backported to rawhide yet.
> I did a backport and ready to submit a PR. What is the right way to proceed:
>
> a) just file a
If I understood things correctly, that's not how this would work. We would not
touch the boot order at all.
See https://github.com/rhboot/shim/pull/502 &
https://mivehind.net/2022/08/17/shim-ab-booting-poc/.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorap
On 14.11.22 17:22, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 14.11.22 00:13, Sandro Mani wrote:
This is done now and the side tag merged. Two packages failed to build:
> python-rasterio
which fails to build due to test failures, I'll investigate whether
they are gdal related
Reported at https://github.co
Hi,
I have good news for everyone interested in optimization software: SCIP
(https://www.scipopt.org/) has changed its license from the previously used
semi-free academic non-commercial license to the Apache 2.0 License, i.e., a
Free Software license and an OSI Approved Open Source license.
Th
Timothée Ravier writes:
>> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
>> transactional. It involves, per spec and depending on processor
>> architecture, updating multiple files in different directories,
>> potentially on different filesystems entirely, one of which is fat32
Hi everyone,
The moby-engine package [1] (also known as Docker) has been orphaned in Fedora
and is looking for a new maintainer. The waiting period will soon be over and
the package will be retired if nobody steps in.
This means that the package will be unavailable starting with the next releas
> Bootloaders are not single files. Consider UEFI:
>
> For grub2, there's both a .efi and some configuration that I'll handwave
> for purposes of this conversation. For shim, it's more like 4 things -
> the main shim*64.efi, fallback.efi, boot.efi, and boot.csv. These all
> serve different purp
MIT and BSD are very common licenses and can be tricky to convert to SPDX license identifiers. Just today, I got two
questions about it. We have this covered in FAQ
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#I_have_a_package_with_BSD_or_MIT_in_the_License_field,_how_do_I_conver
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> There are two common ways to find out what SPDX identifier you should use
> in such cases.
>
>
> 1) You can use https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff and use it to
> identify your license. This is a Chrome and Firefox plugin and allows you
> to select the text; and in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KDERemoveInitialSetup
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Co
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:29 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Until now, what Fedora described as an "MIT" license was, in fact, a whole
> family of licenses. SPDX identify them differently. And the differences can
> be subtle. E.g., compare
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
> https://spdx.org/l
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> For a few years I was keeping track of updates that caused big problems:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Lessons
That is also very anecdotal evidence though. And with only one exception
(the broken dependency in celt), the updates in the above list above are
all:
So let me sum up:
> Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
> creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
> project is not known. This was
> [https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2329 discussed upstream]
> with conclusion that it's an intended beha
On 11/14/22 13:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Timothée Ravier writes:
>
>>> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
>>> transactional. It involves, per spec and depending on processor
>>> architecture, updating multiple files in different directories,
>>> potentially on diff
> We currently don't use the initial-setup application in the main KDE
> Spin and Kinoite installation ISOs as everything gets configured at
> installation time via Anaconda. We thus want to remove this package
> from the installation ISOs while keeping it where we currently need it
> (pre-installe
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:03 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> So let me sum up:
>
> > Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
> > creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
> > project is not known. This was
> > [https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/
Hello,
does somebody know how to contact Steven Roberts? Yes, two requests are for
EPEL 9, but I would be even happy to maintain the EPEL branch(es) myself in
case of a negative response.
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974006
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072993
On 11/11/22 14:10, Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
Something like this should work:
File: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/perllib.attr
%__perllib_requires() %{lua:
if macros['1']:match('.+%.so$') and macros.perl_version then
print('perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_' .. macros.perl_version .. ')')
else
Il 15/11/22 00:23, Neal Gompa ha scritto:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:03 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
>> So let me sum up:
>>
>>> Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
>>> creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
>>> project is not known. Thi
33 matches
Mail list logo
